- Files: GIF, JPG, PNG, TXT, Maximum:11000 KB, Thumbnails: 600x600 pixels
- Currently 4469 unique user posts. View catalogue
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]
Posting mode: Reply [Last 50 posts][ Reply ]
3505 posts omitted. Last 50 posts shown.
Expand all images.
|>>|| No. 425684
So am I the only one who is getting a bit annoyed by this whole Greta Thunberg cult, or am I just too much of a cold hearted cynic that the world would be better off without?
I don't doubt the legitimate concern of her generation over climate change, after all it will fall to them to sort out the utter fucking mess that we have left the planet in, but all the awards that she is now being showered with are IMO just middle aged and old people's guilt over their own failure to save the planet's climate despite having had decades of prior warning, and who lost their way and succumbed to high carbon footprint consumerism somewhere between 1990s road protest villages and today's school runs in a 4x4. None of it feels sincere or genuine, it's more like, yeah, just take all these awards and shut the hell up already.
And parents whose children now protest every Friday or so are now engaging in pissing matches on twitter and Instagram to show off which one of their kids gets the most involved. As one commenter said, nothing good has ever come of a youth protest movement that was applauded by parents.
|>>|| No. 451134
They have Ash Sarkar on his radio show fairly often. I'd her pegged as one of those Owen Jones types who tend to talk out of their arse, but it turns out she actually seems to know what she's on about and can back up what she's saying.
|>>|| No. 451135
>only person brave enough not to kneel for footballers and speak up in defence of the poor oppressed Conservative Party.
I phrased that poorly. They're the only person brave enough not to kneel for footballers, and they're also the only person brave enough to speak up in defence of Boris.
|>>|| No. 451136
I've only heard of him because he got into some sort of bizarre feud with Iain Lee.
It's a safe strategy if you need to churn out a load of Content. Book a load of professional contrarians who can instantly muster up a strong opinion on anything, are willing to throw a tantrum but know exactly where the line is between lively debate and an OFCOM investigation.
|>>|| No. 451137
It was weird how he went from "It's called weather!" to claiming not to be a climate denier; plus the presenter trying to nudge the two younger people into responding to his anti-democratic "I paid more taxes so I get more say" stance. It does strike me as someone putting forward garbage on purpose to bait people into an argument for the sake of it.
|>>|| No. 451139
>It does strike me as someone putting forward garbage on purpose to bait people into an argument for the sake of it.
This is exactly how what we call "the culture war" (a term I don't like but the most commonly understood description) works, from both sides. It's all about just filling the airwaves, columns and people's brains with meaningless chaff so that nobody can ever knuckle down to a proper conversation about whatever the issue behind the smokescreen actually is.
|>>|| No. 451140
>It does strike me as someone putting forward garbage on purpose to bait people into an argument for the sake of it.
That's been Jeremy Vine's modus operandi for as long as I can remember. Even when it's just him on his radio show talking with an expert on a subject matter he'll occasionally play devil's advocate and throw in some contrary dissenting bollocks, like he's trying to catch them out for no real reason.
Then again, he seems to spend his spare time uploading footage of him cycling around London getting into confrontations with pedestrians, drivers and other cyclists. I think he just feeds off conflict. Maybe he's just desperate for attention because his parents always preferred Tim.
They need to take him, and Steve Wright, off air. BBC Radio seem to keep making mistakes in recent years.
|>>|| No. 451141
I don't think you're saying otherwise but want to establish that in this case, the protester is absolutely not doing that, and in fact is trying to put forward that actual issue.
|>>|| No. 451142
Maybe, but he's then exploited as being the nutter, that the other side can disagree with.
|>>|| No. 451143
Yeah I wasn't talking about any specific case, just the bit that I quoted about
>putting forward garbage on purpose to bait people into an argument
By "both sides" I meant the "left" and "right" (i.e the side that likes [thing] and wants to promote it versus the side that things it's disgusting and wants it banned) of whatever issue in particular is at the centre of it.
|>>|| No. 451404
>The fossil fuel industry’s short-term expansion plans involve the start of oil and gas projects that will produce greenhouse gases equivalent to a decade of CO2 emissions from China, the world’s biggest polluter.
>These plans include 195 carbon bombs, gigantic oil and gas projects that would each result in at least a billion tonnes of CO2 emissions over their lifetimes, in total equivalent to about 18 years of current global CO2 emissions. About 60% of these have already started pumping.
>The dozen biggest oil companies are on track to spend $103m a day for the rest of the decade exploiting new fields of oil and gas that cannot be burned if global heating is to be limited to well under 2C.
>The Middle East and Russia often attract the most attention in relation to future oil and gas production but the US, Canada and Australia are among the countries with the biggest expansion plans and the highest number of carbon bombs. The US, Canada and Australia also give some of the world’s biggest subsidies for fossil fuels per capita.
The IPCC states carbon emissions must fall by half by 2030 to preserve the chance of a liveable future, yet they show no sign of declining.
Experts have been warning since at least 2011 that most of the world’s fossil fuel reserves could not be burned without causing catastrophic global heating.
In 2015, a high-profile analysis found that to limit global temperature below 2C, half of known oil reserves and a third of gas had to stay in the ground, along with 80% of coal.
>An updated scientific analysis found the proportion of fossil fuel reserves that would need to stay in the ground for 1.5C jumped to 60% for oil and gas and 90% for coal, while the UN warned that planned fossil fuel production “vastly exceeds” the limit needed for 1.5C.
|>>|| No. 451412
>yet they show no sign of declining
Emission growth has declined over time and will soon start falling outside of the pandemic. 4C won't happen. Whinging about gas plans just misses that new fields have come online as a result of the energy crunch and strategic change.
|>>|| No. 451436
Lads just had a thought about this 'windscreen splatter' test for insect populations in the UK - are we seeing 60% fewer bugs on windshields because we're killing the planet or because cars are more aerodynamic now?
I have no doubt bugs are less ubiquitous than the blissful ignorance of the 90's, but random people seem to still be reporting that they're encountering a lot of bug corpses on their front windscreen so I suspect some of it is due to them driving shitty bangers.
|>>|| No. 451449
>are we seeing 60% fewer bugs on windshields because
You should use "they" in that context unless you're one the researchers. Including yourself in that context is claiming credit for work you haven't performed, which is intellectual property theft.
|>>|| No. 451455
The other headlines news today
1 Permafrost ablaze with wildfires in Siberia
2 Wildfires on furious pace in California
3 France in unprecedented drought
4 Queensland faces another flood emergency as Australia prepares to vote
5 Climate change doubled risk of South Africa floods
|>>|| No. 451456
If they're submitting their bug splatter report to the researchers, they're involved.
|>>|| No. 451541
I've often wondered: at what point do you just say fuck it and impose rationing to maintain social stability?
Perhaps keep market prices for commercial users, resource allocation through pricing and all that, but I suspect you'd get far more unrest if 20% of the public couldn't afford electricity for 100% of the week than you would if 100% of the public had to take power cuts for 20% of the week no matter how much they were willing to pay.
|>>|| No. 451543
Kamkwambas scrap generator.jpg
I don't know if I should pack some rice or simply embrace the process. It'll feel bad to continue watching The Depp/Heard trial instead of walking up to Tesco, but at the same time I've always wanted to experience true poverty - it seems as though that's the best way to achieve spiritual growth and actually come to your senses, to yourself.
The recent changed to protest laws and police powers are starting to make sense now in view of a bigger picture. How long has this been known and why wasn't it better publicised? Or have I simply not been looking?
|>>|| No. 451544
Once you've lost control, generally.
We're all fucked anyway. There's no unclaimed/unowned land, so despite the thousands of different groups who would be much happier and much better off finding their own place to set up a community, we have everyone trapped together fighting over the same shite in these very similar systems which, barring some massive catastrophe or rebellion, won't change in any significant way.
Wealth disparity is growing, fossil fuel usage isn't slowing down. If we do manage to make it to Mars in the next few decades then why would that be any different? It'll be company towns and living to survive/careful moderation of resources and any sort of non-neo-feudal society will fail to form because how on mars could it when the only people rich enough to enable this have complete control?
And just try fucking rebelling - Hong Kong fielded 1/3 of the entire city and barely got anything done. How the fuck are you meant to protest effectively in the west when you're living paycheck to paycheck spread out hundreds of miles? You're not, it's practically designed as such.
It's vexing. We have the resources and knowledge and ability to reduce suffering and live somewhat sustainably and allow most people in the world to pray at their particular church as such, but we can't solve problems because of an apparently infinite number of reasons, mostly boiling down to too few people having too much power.
We need city states back. Maybe. The farmer needs to be able to take time off work to travel to the city and place his black or white stone in the designated area, and to feel like their vote matters.
We haven't evolved beyond geography or the importance of locality, we've just got a shoddy safety net enabling us to operate outside those constraints, but it doesn't work as well as it needs to.
Fuck, I'm so angry and so impotent.
|>>|| No. 451545
>The recent changed to protest laws and police powers are starting to make sense now in view of a bigger picture. How long has this been known and why wasn't it better publicised? Or have I simply not been looking?
I think people seem to underestimate that most countries will engage in protectionism to look after their own first.
India was the second largest producer of wheat and they've been affected by a heatwave so they've banned exports so they have enough food in their country, likewise Indonesia banned the export of palm oil because domestic prices were rising too high after the invasion of Ukraine and due to the poor harvest of other crops used to make edible oils. That'll have a knock-on effect on biofuels.
|>>|| No. 451546
>The rising trend did not begin 15 years ago. It, too, is part of a much longer rising trend in political violence which began to especially accelerate since the 1970s, which is when the global economy first entered a stage of ecological ‘overshoot’.
Yeah but no, we're not at the level of violence and disorder of the 1970s. We're not even close. The economy is preparing for conditions that are reminiscent of the 1970s which if you wanted to be a hippie-doomer about it marked the decline of the Post-War consensus and post-industrialisation.
We know exactly what will happen because we've lived through an energy crunch before, factories go into 4-day weeks and bullshit products like playmobile come out to address shortages in plastics. Hopefully our return to bell-bottoms will also mean orgies and pornographic movies with plots and not the 1976 Heatwave.
|>>|| No. 451547
Bust always comes before the boom though, right lads?
When things spiral out of control in the current economy, investors and entrepreneurs will be forced to find a new avenue of work. The more reliable solar, wind, tidal and geothermal start to look compared to the increasing volatility of fossil fuels and other non-renewables, surely they will eventually have to make the jump.
Big social change is coming, however, that I am sure of. The actions we need to take are simply not possible under the present international neo-liberal capitalist system. I remember there being a lot of doomsaying about globalisation a decade or two ago, how it's all the illuminati and NWO trying to take our freedoms, but the future of humanity's prosperity and safety almost certainly lies, by necessity, with some form of global unipolar order.
I predict we will see something quite new, not quite socialism, not quite capitalism, but with a much stronger grip on international rule and regulation.
|>>|| No. 451558
I'm not trying to be unnecessarily doomer when I say this, but
>Bust always comes before the boom though, right lads?
... sort of? Tell that to the Romans, what was their boom? And things don't have to cycle. It can just deteriorate forever.
|>>|| No. 451561
That's a matter of perspective. A human lifespan is pretty short. Roman civilisation didn't really collapse, it just stopped being Roman. Things got worse, but there has never been a real end of the world. The so called "bronze age collapse" was really just an extended period of migration, regime change and upheaval.
Germany is still there today, and we still buy products from a lot of the same companies that were kicking about back during the Nazi days. The government collapsed but the majority of the country just took down all the banners, went "Gott, sei dank ist das vorbei" and carried on.
Civilisations don't collapse, only governments.
|>>|| No. 451569
>... sort of? Tell that to the Romans, what was their boom?
They had multiple and by the end in the West it was really shit to be Roman. Not all that different to what came after and in some ways worse with heredity jobs and a special bounty hunter to therefore catch runaway bureaucrats.
But on the whole humanity has improved over time, it has peaks and troughs but it's an upward trajectory.
|>>|| No. 451573
The only genuine example I can think of is something like the Easter Islanders. All other collapses throughout history have really just been transitions or mergers.
|>>|| No. 451576
Native Americans. They had a relatively advanced and urbanised civilisation, but reverted to nomadism after the introduction of infectious diseases by European explorers. They weren't wiped out, but the risk of disease caused a mass exodus from major settlements and made trading extremely risky. Their civilisation collapsed long before Europeans started rounding them up into reservations.
|>>|| No. 451612
Depends how much you like eating. Best to start doomsday prepping, although doing so will contribute to shortages.
|>>|| No. 451613
You're thinking of the Mound Builders only they continued through the Natchez despite mortality as high as 90%. I know the point you're trying to make but if you're having to go to something so devastating it's really not doing your argument any favours - yes I suppose if everyone dies then a civilisation ends.
But I'd still add that Native American civilization didn't really end, it changed and blended and morphed in the circumstances of an alien environment to the degree that the local cultures forgot they once lived in a world without horses.
We're fine despite the stories of Britney being pushed over the edge by the price of fish fingers, British households spend less than the OECD average on food and as the Economist fails to point out directly it's more of a policy question given just how much food is produced globally. If the US wanted to it could just start bombing the Middle East with corn instead of turning it into ethanol.
The world deliberately overproduces food, it's just a question of how that food ends up in bellies.
|>>|| No. 451614
>the Economist fails to point out directly it's more of a policy question given just how much food is produced globally. If the US wanted to it could just start bombing the Middle East with corn instead of turning it into ethanol.
Are the US military known for pausing their military industrial complex's profitability in order to feed foreigners?
|>>|| No. 451620
>If the US wanted to it could just start bombing the Middle East with corn instead of turning it into ethanol.
|>>|| No. 451635
When I first moved here I thought I'd treat myself to a fry-up, only to find that all of the sausage and the bacon (which is cut the wrong way anyway) has corn syrup in.
|>>|| No. 451685
>HSBC has reportedly suspended a senior executive who accused central bankers and other officials of exaggerating the financial risks of climate change.
>Last week, Stuart Kirk, a leader in the bank's responsible investing team, said: "There's always some nut job telling me about the end of the world."
>Later in the presentation, he said: "Who cares if Miami is six metres underwater in 100 years? Amsterdam has been six metres underwater for ages and that's a really nice place."
On the contrary, I found Amsterdam to be a bit anticlimactic. Maybe I just picked a bad time when I was there, but it was absolutely riddled with American college kids and backpackers who couldn't handle their booze. Or their cannabis.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Google says Amsterdam is only two metres below sea level.
|>>|| No. 451692
Clive Lewis has implied in Parliament that the government/corporations are criminals for what they're doing on the climate crisis. This echoes what the greens have been saying, I believe.
[ Return ] [ Entire Thread ] [ First 100 posts ] [ Last 50 posts ]